Anyone leading a large and important enterprise, be it a major American company or something as complex as our nation requires a dedicated team to carry forth his vision and implement those things that need implementing. It's almost impossible for leader to do the job all by him or herself. So let's take a moment to call forth the members of Obama's team, the men and women who work the long, hard hours carrying forth Obama's goals.
White House Advisor: Valerie Jarrett (Father-in-law worked closely with Communist Party leader, FrankMarshal Davis. They worked with front groups during the Cold War.)
Political Aide: David Axelrod (Mother worked with Communist organ in New York. Mentor was the Soviet agent, David Canter)
Green Jobs Czar: Van Jones (Admitted communist hired by Valerie Jarrett.)
2012 Obama's foreign policy debate coach: Anita Dunn (Listed Mao Zedong one of her two favorite philosophers, who "(She) turn(ed) to most" when questions arise)
Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein (Advocates redistribution of wealth through climate change policy.)
Ambassador to the UN: Samantha Powers (A 9/11 apologist.)
Former State Department policy chief: Anne-Marie Slaughter (Advised Obama to apologize for the War on Terror.)
Mideast envoy: Rashad Hussein (Defended a convicted terrorist. Drafted Obama's Cairo speech.)
Chief nuclear arms negotiator: Rose Gottemoeller (Felt America had to unilaterally disarm to preserve the peace.)
Assistant HUD secretary for fair housing: John Transvina (Had once headed the radical Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, whose co-founder made racist statements about
whites.)
Head of White House domestic policy: Cecilia Munoz (Previously worked for La Raza, the militant Latino group that advocates illegal immigrant rights.)
Bureau of Labor Statistics chief: Erica Groshen (Sends her children to Camp Kinderland, where kids during the Cold War sang Soviet anthems.)
Science czar: John Holdren (Once advocated adding sterilant to "drinking water" to control population.)
Former State Department general counsel: Harold Koh (Sees nothing wrong with Shariah law in U.S. Courts.)
Associate attorney general overseeing Gitmo policy: Tony West (Defended Al Qaida and Taliban terrorists.)
We give thanks and honor these men and women who fill all Americans with pride.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Apres Vous Great Britain
Ve vill punish zat evil lout and dastardly criminal, ze Russian Putin said, in essence, Laurent Fabius, Foreign Minister of France. More precisely, he said that France would halt its 1.2 billion Euro contract to supply two Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia as one of the steps to be taken to show its anger regarding Russia's behavior in Crimea. There was but one caveat. Other western nations would have to take equivalent steps. In particular, the Minister called on the UK to take steps of equal magnitude regarding the assets of Russian oligarchs in London.
The stakes for western nations are quite high. Anything done against the assets of the Russians in London, would impact the London financial market quite severely. Nevertheless, the stakes are equally high for the French. The assault ships and helicopters represent 1,000 French jobs at a time when the French military budget is shrinking.
It's a very, very big deal and France is quite correct in demanding that its allies take like measures.
The stakes for western nations are quite high. Anything done against the assets of the Russians in London, would impact the London financial market quite severely. Nevertheless, the stakes are equally high for the French. The assault ships and helicopters represent 1,000 French jobs at a time when the French military budget is shrinking.
It's a very, very big deal and France is quite correct in demanding that its allies take like measures.
Monday, March 17, 2014
St. Scarlett Vanquishes Oxfam
Oxfam never saw it coming. That’s what happens when you get complacent.
It seemed like it would be so easy. Didn’t everyone beat up on Israel — the UN, the Europeans, and hoards of NGO’s? So what happened to Oxfam? In a word, Saint Scarlett. Scarlett Johansson that is, a once spokes lady for Oxfam.
Sure, SodaStream made its product in factories, some of which were located just over some line and on the West Bank. But, SodaStream also employed hundreds of Palestinians who they paid on the same scale as Israelis and with exactly the same benefits. It gave these workers far more income than they could hope to earn elsewhere on the West Bank.
“What kind of NGO is this Oxfam?” asked Scarlett. Hadn’t they been created to help downtrodden people? What were they doing involving themselves in a political dispute. And, then Scarlett Johansson delivered her coup de grace. She removed from Oxfam her seal of approval.
Monday, March 10, 2014
The Sami and The Jews
Everyone knows all about the Jews, so let's start with the Sami. These are a people close to the Arctic. In a sense they're somewhat like the Inuit of Canada and Alaska. The Sami are found in the northern most areas of Sweden, Finland and Russia.
The current attitude of the Swedes toward their Sami population is quite benign. Indeed, while rules regarding he slaughter of various animals have been tightened and now requires that the animal be stunned (knocked out) before it is killed, the Sami people have been granted an exception. Their slaughter of reindeer requires no initial stunning.
Indeed, the Sami have been granted the right by Sweden to herd reindeer as they did in days of old. There are, however, some modern twists regarding the herding. They often use helicopters to drive the deer into close quarters. The sound of the low flying copter will generally cause the herd to panic and bang into one another, leading to broken legs.
But the Swedes are an understanding people. The Sami have herded reindeer for hundreds and hundreds of years. They allow the Sami to continuing the herding the reindeer and slaughter in ways they have always followed, because the Sami are a "protected minority" under Swedish law.
But, what about the Jews? Aren't they a minority in Sweden? And, don't they and their Jewish ways also deserve protection? It is important for Jews that their meat be kosher. It means slaughtering the animal in the correct way. If the animal to be kosher, it must have a knife drawn across its carotid arteries. No stunning allowed. The animal is unconscious within a second or two and death follows. There is no herding involved, no animal abuse; simply a fast death that is virtually pain free.
But, Sweden has passed the same laws disallowing kosher slaughter and requiring that the animal be first stunned as have other European countries. There is no Sami exemption for Jews despite their small numbers in Sweden and their desire to remain faithful to their Jewish beliefs and practices. The practice Sweden towards the Jews is clearly discriminatory. Indeed, it is anti-Semitic behavior. Shame on you Sweden.
The current attitude of the Swedes toward their Sami population is quite benign. Indeed, while rules regarding he slaughter of various animals have been tightened and now requires that the animal be stunned (knocked out) before it is killed, the Sami people have been granted an exception. Their slaughter of reindeer requires no initial stunning.
Indeed, the Sami have been granted the right by Sweden to herd reindeer as they did in days of old. There are, however, some modern twists regarding the herding. They often use helicopters to drive the deer into close quarters. The sound of the low flying copter will generally cause the herd to panic and bang into one another, leading to broken legs.
But the Swedes are an understanding people. The Sami have herded reindeer for hundreds and hundreds of years. They allow the Sami to continuing the herding the reindeer and slaughter in ways they have always followed, because the Sami are a "protected minority" under Swedish law.
But, what about the Jews? Aren't they a minority in Sweden? And, don't they and their Jewish ways also deserve protection? It is important for Jews that their meat be kosher. It means slaughtering the animal in the correct way. If the animal to be kosher, it must have a knife drawn across its carotid arteries. No stunning allowed. The animal is unconscious within a second or two and death follows. There is no herding involved, no animal abuse; simply a fast death that is virtually pain free.
But, Sweden has passed the same laws disallowing kosher slaughter and requiring that the animal be first stunned as have other European countries. There is no Sami exemption for Jews despite their small numbers in Sweden and their desire to remain faithful to their Jewish beliefs and practices. The practice Sweden towards the Jews is clearly discriminatory. Indeed, it is anti-Semitic behavior. Shame on you Sweden.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Soft Predjudices
The other night my wife and I shared a pizza with a lovely couple we had recently met. The wife of the other couple was from Lebanon. She had immigrated to this country not that long ago and had a strong middle eastern accent. Her husband was from New England. It was the second marriage for both and both seemed very happy. I should further note that the wife, let's call her Betty, was Lebanese Christian. The husband, let's call him Jake, was Jewish.
In the course of our conversation, we learned that Betty's father was relatively wealthy. He owned Lebanese fabric mills and orange orchards. These assets kept him and his sons anchored to Lebanon. Betty would visit the family once a year.
Our conversation, not all that surprisingly, drifted to Israel and the Arabs. Betty mentioned that Sharon had been put on trial. Her English, not being all that polished, led me to believe she was referring to a trial that Sharon might have been put on for his responsibility in the Sabra and Shatila massacre. I tried to frame her comments by reminding her that this massacre of Palestinians had been committed by Lebanese Christians in retaliation for the murder of a Christian leader by the Palestinians.
"Oh, no, it wasn't the Christians," replied Betty. "Christian leaders in Lebanon killed one another. They kill each other's families. They didn't kill Palestinians.
She had me stumped. I only knew what I had read in the newspapers and that was was quite different than what she was now telling me. But, than again, I had read this quite some time ago.
I pointed out that if the Arabs had accepted Israel in '48, they would have had far more territory than what they where now trying to get. I also pointed out that Jews absorbed their fellow Jews from the various Islamic nations from which they were forced to flee and I further noted that the numbers of these Jewish refugees was equivalent to the number of Palestinians displaced by the conflict between Israel and the various Arab countries that had attacked Israel.
And then suddenly it came; that old, soft anti-Semitism. "But, the Jews had money," said Betty.
"Really? I responded. "Well, no doubt, some did. In any population, some will be poor and some wealthy. Possibly, because of their greater literacy, the Jews might have been better off than the average Arab. But, of course, when they were forced from their homes, they could take with them nothing but the clothes on their back and whatever they managed to stick in a suitcase. They were forbidden to take out any money, or gold, or jewelry. And, even if they managed to sneak out some money, how much could it have been? Their property and fixed assets which had been accumulated over generations were lost."
"They had money," repeated Betty.
I then brought up those Arabs who enjoyed good relations with the Jews; namely, Druze, Kurds, and Bahai's. "They Druze, " said Betty, "they are not so nice."
"Really? What's the matter with them?" I asked.
"They have their secrets," she replied.
I laughed. "Yes, indeed. They keep their religion a secret from others. So?" I asked.
"They have some strange ideas. Their spirit comes out ......" said Betty finding it difficult to explain in English exactly what she wanted to say about the Druze belief system.
"Yes, I know," I said. "They believe that when they die their spirit flits over to a baby just being born."
"Yes," confirmed Betty, "They believe that." She was happy that I now showed that I understood just how peculiar the Druze were.
"But the Jews are pretty nasty to the Palestinians," offered Jake.
"Really? How so?" I asked.
"They destroy Palestinian homes. The force the people out into the street and then blow up their house," he replied.
"I suppose they will do that on occasion," I said. "But why do you imagine they'd do that?" I asked.
"They don't like the Palestinians," he replied.
"Wrong," I said. "They do it when the building was put up illegally. You can't just put up a building and move in. You can't do it in New York, you can't do it in Florida, and you can't do it in Israel."
"Well, what about the settlements where they take over Palestinian land," asked Jake.
"Ah, yes, Palestinian land," I replied. "Help me out. Do you mean land that belonged to individual Palestinians or to land that had been owned by Jordan?"
"Does it make a difference?" asked Jake.
"Certainly," I replied. "If it was Jordanian land, Israel had every right to take it. If it's the land of some Palestinian, Israeli's have to buy it. They can't just take a Palestinian's property. They've got to buy it."
"Who's to say the land belonged to Jordan or to some Palestinian?" asked Jake. "What's to keep Israelis from saying that the land belonged to Jordan, even if it didn't?"
"Good question. Here's the answer. Before the English and French cut up the territories, all the land was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. All land deeds, even after the French and British took over, continued to be filed in Istanbul," I answered.
"That's right," said Betty. "My father's land is filed in Istanbul."
What the above conversation told me was that Betty and Jake are fine people. They're not against Israel, and certainly not against Jews. But they've been exposed to years and years of Palestinian propaganda. What's surprising is that what prejudices they may have are relatively "soft" prejudices. They really don't hate Israel, they're just poorly informed.
In the course of our conversation, we learned that Betty's father was relatively wealthy. He owned Lebanese fabric mills and orange orchards. These assets kept him and his sons anchored to Lebanon. Betty would visit the family once a year.
Our conversation, not all that surprisingly, drifted to Israel and the Arabs. Betty mentioned that Sharon had been put on trial. Her English, not being all that polished, led me to believe she was referring to a trial that Sharon might have been put on for his responsibility in the Sabra and Shatila massacre. I tried to frame her comments by reminding her that this massacre of Palestinians had been committed by Lebanese Christians in retaliation for the murder of a Christian leader by the Palestinians.
"Oh, no, it wasn't the Christians," replied Betty. "Christian leaders in Lebanon killed one another. They kill each other's families. They didn't kill Palestinians.
She had me stumped. I only knew what I had read in the newspapers and that was was quite different than what she was now telling me. But, than again, I had read this quite some time ago.
I pointed out that if the Arabs had accepted Israel in '48, they would have had far more territory than what they where now trying to get. I also pointed out that Jews absorbed their fellow Jews from the various Islamic nations from which they were forced to flee and I further noted that the numbers of these Jewish refugees was equivalent to the number of Palestinians displaced by the conflict between Israel and the various Arab countries that had attacked Israel.
And then suddenly it came; that old, soft anti-Semitism. "But, the Jews had money," said Betty.
"Really? I responded. "Well, no doubt, some did. In any population, some will be poor and some wealthy. Possibly, because of their greater literacy, the Jews might have been better off than the average Arab. But, of course, when they were forced from their homes, they could take with them nothing but the clothes on their back and whatever they managed to stick in a suitcase. They were forbidden to take out any money, or gold, or jewelry. And, even if they managed to sneak out some money, how much could it have been? Their property and fixed assets which had been accumulated over generations were lost."
"They had money," repeated Betty.
I then brought up those Arabs who enjoyed good relations with the Jews; namely, Druze, Kurds, and Bahai's. "They Druze, " said Betty, "they are not so nice."
"Really? What's the matter with them?" I asked.
"They have their secrets," she replied.
I laughed. "Yes, indeed. They keep their religion a secret from others. So?" I asked.
"They have some strange ideas. Their spirit comes out ......" said Betty finding it difficult to explain in English exactly what she wanted to say about the Druze belief system.
"Yes, I know," I said. "They believe that when they die their spirit flits over to a baby just being born."
"Yes," confirmed Betty, "They believe that." She was happy that I now showed that I understood just how peculiar the Druze were.
"But the Jews are pretty nasty to the Palestinians," offered Jake.
"Really? How so?" I asked.
"They destroy Palestinian homes. The force the people out into the street and then blow up their house," he replied.
"I suppose they will do that on occasion," I said. "But why do you imagine they'd do that?" I asked.
"They don't like the Palestinians," he replied.
"Wrong," I said. "They do it when the building was put up illegally. You can't just put up a building and move in. You can't do it in New York, you can't do it in Florida, and you can't do it in Israel."
"Well, what about the settlements where they take over Palestinian land," asked Jake.
"Ah, yes, Palestinian land," I replied. "Help me out. Do you mean land that belonged to individual Palestinians or to land that had been owned by Jordan?"
"Does it make a difference?" asked Jake.
"Certainly," I replied. "If it was Jordanian land, Israel had every right to take it. If it's the land of some Palestinian, Israeli's have to buy it. They can't just take a Palestinian's property. They've got to buy it."
"Who's to say the land belonged to Jordan or to some Palestinian?" asked Jake. "What's to keep Israelis from saying that the land belonged to Jordan, even if it didn't?"
"Good question. Here's the answer. Before the English and French cut up the territories, all the land was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. All land deeds, even after the French and British took over, continued to be filed in Istanbul," I answered.
"That's right," said Betty. "My father's land is filed in Istanbul."
What the above conversation told me was that Betty and Jake are fine people. They're not against Israel, and certainly not against Jews. But they've been exposed to years and years of Palestinian propaganda. What's surprising is that what prejudices they may have are relatively "soft" prejudices. They really don't hate Israel, they're just poorly informed.
Friday, March 7, 2014
The One-Eyed Thomas L. Friedman
Friedman has done some fine reporting. But, he's also said some awfully dumb things. I was reminded of this when I read his item, "Breakfast Before The MOOC," an Op-Ed piece in the NY Times, Feb. 19, 2004.
Some explanation: MOOC refers to any "massive open online course." In his Op-Ed piece, Friedman describes a MOOC being taught by Prof. Hossam Haick, an Israeli Arab. Prof. Haick is teaching a MOOC on nanotechnology under the auspices of Technion University in both Arabic and English to students who have registered to take this free online course in such places as Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the like.
Prof. Haick's Ph.D. is from the Technion. (His father also graduated from the Technion.) Prof. Hossam Haick is 38 and is described by Thomas Friedman as a science prodigy. Twelve years ago, Israeli Arabs made up 9% of Technion's students. Mr. Friedman points out that today the figure is 19%.
It's all good, and I would challenge nothing that Mr. Friedman said up to this point. However, let me now point to information Mr. Friedman did not provide. First, what kind of Arab is Prof. Haick (Anyone who speaks Arabic as his first language is an Arab, and this could conceivably include Jews. I doubt it does include Jews because of the Jew's love of their Hebrew language. But, it would not be amiss to describe a recent Jewish immigrant from Yemen as an Arab. Again, while it might technically be correct to do so, it is unlikely that even an Arab-speaking Jew would be referred to as an Arab. It would simply be too confusing.) It is not inappropriate to ask whether Prof. Haick is Druze, or Bahai, or Sunni Muslim, or Christian. As Mr. Friedman must know these differences among the Arab populaltion are relevant and do matter.
Mr. Friedman also really ought to tell his readers that Israel practices affirmative action. In other words, that their universities set aside places for non-Jewish students, roughly in proportion to their numbers in the Israeli population.
What Mr. Friedman can not help but share with his readers are references to Israel's "ugly West Bank occupation," and "economic discrimination against Israeli Arabs." Here, Mr. Friedman must be seeing things through his blind eye. The ugliness of conditions in the West Bank result not from Israel's administrative efforts so much as from the history if Palestinian intifadas, from their assaults on Israeli vehicles, from their murder of Israeli citizens, and from the desire of a significant number of Palestinians to blow up buses carrying Israeli women and children. The hatred that drives this behavior is carefully nurtured by the Palestinian leadership through their news organizations, through their schools, and through any other means of communication available to them.
The separation between Israel and the West Bank, whether by electric fence, or by concrete barrier, is not particularly attractive. I don't believe the Swiss have any such barriers between themselves and their German, French, or Italian neighbors. But, then, it should be pointed out, these neighbors don't go around trying to kill Swiss citizens.
And, what exactly does Mr. Friedman refer to when he says that Israel discriminates economically against Israeli Arabs? If Mr. Friedman didn't suffer from his optic affliction, he'd recognize that economic well being varies greatly between Jews as it does between different Israeli Arab groups. He must know that secular Jews educate their daughters to the same extent as they do their sons. Secular wives generally go out and work. Hassidic Jews, however, generally finds the men studying Torah all day. The education they give their daughters tends to be inadequate in the face of today's needs.
The situation is somewhat similar with Israeli Arabs. Druze and Christian Arabs generally give their daughters an education equal to that of their sons. As a consequence, the standard of living of these families matches that of secular Jews. The same is very likely true for secular Muslims. But, poor Muslims with no education other than their memorization of verses from the Koran and perhaps some knowledge of the Hadith and Sunnah act pretty much the way the Hassidim do. They educate their daughters poorly and then marry them off as soon as possible. Although it is in violation of Israeli law, a number of Muslims continue to practice polygamy. This life style, as Mr. Friedman should realize is not conducive to a family's economic well being.
The problems of the Palestinians on the West Bank has little to do with the Israelis and everything to do with the corruption of past and present Palestinian leaders. What motivation did Arafat have to make peace with the Israelis? He was piling up mountains of money in his Swiss bank accounts. Peace would have undermined his economic well being. The situation has not changed, except that today, it is Abbas who is piling up the money.
One can only wish that Thomas Friedman had two good eyes.
Some explanation: MOOC refers to any "massive open online course." In his Op-Ed piece, Friedman describes a MOOC being taught by Prof. Hossam Haick, an Israeli Arab. Prof. Haick is teaching a MOOC on nanotechnology under the auspices of Technion University in both Arabic and English to students who have registered to take this free online course in such places as Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the like.
Prof. Haick's Ph.D. is from the Technion. (His father also graduated from the Technion.) Prof. Hossam Haick is 38 and is described by Thomas Friedman as a science prodigy. Twelve years ago, Israeli Arabs made up 9% of Technion's students. Mr. Friedman points out that today the figure is 19%.
It's all good, and I would challenge nothing that Mr. Friedman said up to this point. However, let me now point to information Mr. Friedman did not provide. First, what kind of Arab is Prof. Haick (Anyone who speaks Arabic as his first language is an Arab, and this could conceivably include Jews. I doubt it does include Jews because of the Jew's love of their Hebrew language. But, it would not be amiss to describe a recent Jewish immigrant from Yemen as an Arab. Again, while it might technically be correct to do so, it is unlikely that even an Arab-speaking Jew would be referred to as an Arab. It would simply be too confusing.) It is not inappropriate to ask whether Prof. Haick is Druze, or Bahai, or Sunni Muslim, or Christian. As Mr. Friedman must know these differences among the Arab populaltion are relevant and do matter.
Mr. Friedman also really ought to tell his readers that Israel practices affirmative action. In other words, that their universities set aside places for non-Jewish students, roughly in proportion to their numbers in the Israeli population.
What Mr. Friedman can not help but share with his readers are references to Israel's "ugly West Bank occupation," and "economic discrimination against Israeli Arabs." Here, Mr. Friedman must be seeing things through his blind eye. The ugliness of conditions in the West Bank result not from Israel's administrative efforts so much as from the history if Palestinian intifadas, from their assaults on Israeli vehicles, from their murder of Israeli citizens, and from the desire of a significant number of Palestinians to blow up buses carrying Israeli women and children. The hatred that drives this behavior is carefully nurtured by the Palestinian leadership through their news organizations, through their schools, and through any other means of communication available to them.
The separation between Israel and the West Bank, whether by electric fence, or by concrete barrier, is not particularly attractive. I don't believe the Swiss have any such barriers between themselves and their German, French, or Italian neighbors. But, then, it should be pointed out, these neighbors don't go around trying to kill Swiss citizens.
And, what exactly does Mr. Friedman refer to when he says that Israel discriminates economically against Israeli Arabs? If Mr. Friedman didn't suffer from his optic affliction, he'd recognize that economic well being varies greatly between Jews as it does between different Israeli Arab groups. He must know that secular Jews educate their daughters to the same extent as they do their sons. Secular wives generally go out and work. Hassidic Jews, however, generally finds the men studying Torah all day. The education they give their daughters tends to be inadequate in the face of today's needs.
The situation is somewhat similar with Israeli Arabs. Druze and Christian Arabs generally give their daughters an education equal to that of their sons. As a consequence, the standard of living of these families matches that of secular Jews. The same is very likely true for secular Muslims. But, poor Muslims with no education other than their memorization of verses from the Koran and perhaps some knowledge of the Hadith and Sunnah act pretty much the way the Hassidim do. They educate their daughters poorly and then marry them off as soon as possible. Although it is in violation of Israeli law, a number of Muslims continue to practice polygamy. This life style, as Mr. Friedman should realize is not conducive to a family's economic well being.
The problems of the Palestinians on the West Bank has little to do with the Israelis and everything to do with the corruption of past and present Palestinian leaders. What motivation did Arafat have to make peace with the Israelis? He was piling up mountains of money in his Swiss bank accounts. Peace would have undermined his economic well being. The situation has not changed, except that today, it is Abbas who is piling up the money.
One can only wish that Thomas Friedman had two good eyes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)